All posts by Alison Downes
More than 10,000 Say No to Sizewell C
More than 10,000 Say No to Sizewell C as government announces an extra 10GW of offshore wind and mulls a direct stake in new nuclear
[LONDON] Campaign representatives from Stop Sizewell C and Together Against Sizewell C today delivered over 10,400 signatures [1] opposing Sizewell C to Downing Street, the Treasury and the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. [2] The petition calls on the government to stop Sizewell C because it would be risky, slow and – at £20 billion – massively expensive, sucking funds away from renewable energy and storage. The project would not positively contribute to net zero until 2040. [3]
The petition was delivered on the day the Prime Minister announced an increase in the target for power from offshore wind from 30GW to 40GW by 2030 [4] – a 10GW difference the equivalent of 3 Sizewell Cs – and in the midst of speculation that the government was considering taking a stake in future nuclear projects. At a Party Conference side event sponsored by EDF, BEIS Minister Kwasi Kwarteng said the Treasury was thinking “‘why shouldn’t we have upside?” …why shouldn’t we have equity?” [5]
Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: “With government on the brink of major decisions about our future energy, there is plenty of evidence that Sizewell C would have no “upside”. Not only is it expensive and risky, it is also slow, unable to deploy for years after the Prime Minister’s target of 40GW of offshore wind. There is also the controversy of China’s involvement. No other western European country, not even France, wants to build EDF’s trouble-prone EPR technology.” [6]
Pete Wilkinson of Together Against Sizewell C said: “Opposition to Sizewell C is strengthening, as these 10,000 signatures bear witness to, and neither we nor the signatories to this petition are alone. Numerous organisations, including RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust oppose it, along with at least 10 Town and Parish Councils. Suffolk County Council “cannot support” EDF’s plans as the putative benefits of Sizewell C are significantly outweighed by the dis-benefits of the proposed development. Sizewell C, if it was ever built, would be a white elephant development on an eroding coast leaving behind a massively diminished environment, a weakened tourism industry and a lethal nuclear waste legacy.”
Additional evidence was provided yesterday by the University of Sussex Business School and International School of Management in Munich. Their analysis of 123 countries found that nuclear energy should not be considered as an effective low-carbon energy source and that nuclear and renewable energy programmes do not co-exist well together, but instead “crowd each other out” and limit the effectiveness of carbon cutting. [7]
Notes
1. The petition https://www.stopsizewellcpetition.com/ is a joint initiative of Stop Sizewell C www.stopsizewellc.org and Together Against Sizewell C www.tasizewellc.co.uk. Signatures currently stand at 10,659 and is still growing
2. Pictures (of Alison Downes and Chris Wilson) are available in Gdrive; https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/107xHkJ60F-zLu8-xqFWnEUQNkbyQOKyh?usp=sharing. Please credit Stop Sizewell C/TASC.
3. See https://stopsizewellc.org/sizewell-c-and-climate-change/ for a detailed assessment of EDF’s documentation on CO2 emissions.
4. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-to-make-uk-world-leader-in-green-energy
5. Minister Kwarteng told the event that the RAB funding model, under which householders would pay a “nuclear tax” on bills during construction, could not bypass the government’s balance sheet, saying “My understanding is…that it will be looked at or scored as government liability, government debt. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/government-considers-taking-equity-stakes-in-nuclear-plants-q56k7r2ms
6. Only France and Finland besides the UK have any nuclear new builds. Finland’s EPR new build at Olkiluoto is over a decade late: France’s only new build is the disastrous Flamanville EPR, also over a decade late. France has said it will not make any decisions about other new builds until at least the end of 2022. https://uk.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/france-will-not-decide-on-new-nuclear-reactors-before-end-of-2022-idUSL8N29E2Z7
7. The study was published by Nature Energy https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-00696-3
The Times, 5 October 2020
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/
Will we go for Sizewell C nuclear option to meet zero-carbon goals?If ministers are to provide clean, reliable energy they must make a decision on the project soon
Emily Gosden, Energy EditorMonday October 05 2020, 12.01am, The Times
To its supporters, it’s a crucial step to meeting Britain’s net-zero emissions goals, providing reliable low-carbon power and creating thousands of jobs. To its critics, it’s an outdated, risky technology that will push up energy bills and blight the landscape. The proposed Sizewell C nuclear plant has long provoked debate in the energy industry — but what does the government think? That’s the £20 billion question.
The twin-reactor plant in Suffolk proposed by France’s EDF could generate 3.2 gigawatts of electricity, enough to provide 7 per cent of Britain’s needs. It would be a sister station to Hinkley Point C, which EDF is building with the Chinese state group CGN in Somerset, and which the government said in 2016 should be the “first of a wave of new nuclear plants”.
Yet of five projects that were proposed to follow Hinkley, three — in Cumbria, Anglesey and Gloucestershire — have been abandoned by their Japanese developers, while CGN’s hopes of building its own reactor in Essex look politically highly unlikely amid hostility to China. That leaves the £20 billion Sizewell plant as the test case for whether the government still wants nuclear, and what it’s prepared to do to make it happen.
“What we need to see is a strong and unambiguous statement of the need for new nuclear to be able to meet the net-zero target,” Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, says. He hopes an energy white paper, delayed by more than a year and now promised this autumn, will include a clear indication of how much nuclear is wanted. “Ministers haven’t said in recent times anything about the proportions of power coming from which zero-emission sources. There has to be a greater sense of direction.”
As the costs of wind, solar and batteries have fallen, critics have questioned whether nuclear is really needed. The National Infrastructure Commission advised the government in 2018 that it should commit to only one more nuclear plant by 2025 since renewables may prove to be cheaper.
Mr Greatrex insists this view is mistaken and does not reflect the requirements of Britain’s net-zero target, set last year. The Committee on Climate Change, the official advisers on that goal, say that power demand may double by 2050 and 38 per cent of it may need to be met by firm low-carbon power: either nuclear, or gas plants fitted with carbon capture technology.
Dermot Nolan, who led the energy regulator Ofgem until January, says that he believes “we probably won’t know until 2040 or 2050 if we were right to do nuclear” but that to minimise risks, “it is better to develop some nuclear at this point”. He adds: “I think there’s sufficient uncertainty about overall power demand, and sufficient uncertainty about whether a 100 per cent renewable mix will be lower or higher cost, that it’s just not putting all your eggs in one basket.”
The limited indications are that the government agrees: the business department says that “nuclear power will play a key role in the UK’s future energy mix as we transition to a low-carbon economy”. But if they do want new nuclear, ministers will need to decide how to fund it. “The current financing mechanism won’t work,” Mr Greatrex says.
At Hinkley, state-backed EDF and the Chinese are shouldering the decade-long construction costs and risks. EDF has made clear that it cannot afford to do the same for Sizewell and needs to bring in a majority of private investors. And at Hinkley, the return on investment comes through a contract guaranteeing consumers will pay £92.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for its electricity — more than double the price awarded to recent offshore wind projects, and politically unrepeatable.
One option backed by industry and consulted on by government is a regulated asset base (RAB) model. A regulator such as Ofgem would determine how much consumers should pay each year to give investors a lower but more reliable return on the costs of building and operating the plant, including any potential cost overruns, with interest payments starting during the construction period.
EDF says this could help reduce Sizewell’s costs to the equivalent of £40 to £60/MWh. Mr Nolan, now at the consultancy Fingleton, says that the RAB model is “very much understood by investors” and should enable a much lower cost of capital. He believes this outweighs the risk that “if something does go wrong, then the consumer is on the hook” — especially given Sizewell should be able to learn lessons from Hinkley. “If you’ve done it before, then the risk of a disastrously expensive build should be reduced.”
Another option is for the government to take a direct stake, as it had offered to do in the now-abandoned Anglesey project, or even to bankroll the majority of the construction and then sell it to private investors once complete. EDF appears amenable to either option: it just wants a decision. It is lobbying the government for a “roadmap that will enable an early investment decision on Sizewell C”.
For local campaigners such as Alison Downes, of Stop Sizewell C, there should be no rush from ministers to commit to the “white elephant” plant, with more than a year still to go on the planning process. “Sizewell C is a bad project — if EDF can’t make it work on their own terms they shouldn’t expect the British public to bail them out,” she adds. Yet if the government decides that new nuclear plants are needed, it may have little other choice.
Sizewell C ‘cheaper than the alternatives’, industry insists
The Sizewell C nuclear plant could cost each household about £10.50 a year on their energy bills, EDF analysis suggests (Emily Gosden writes).
The levy would cover repaying investors for the construction of the £20 billion plant as well as costs for the electricity it would generate.
The French energy giant estimates that by using a regulated asset base (RAB) funding model to reduce financing costs, combined with savings by replicating the Hinkley Point C design, the cost of power from the Suffolk plant could be reduced to between £40 and £60 per megawatt hour (MWh). Its “illustrative” £10.50 per household per year figure is based on a midpoint of £50/MWh.
EDF says that this would be the total sum paid to Sizewell each year once in operation, not what it would “add” to bills; that calculation depends on what it would cost to buy the same volume of power from other sources. Recent offshore wind projects have been given the go-ahead at less than £40MWh.
However, EDF argues that wind has higher costs in terms of back-up power, and says it is confident Sizewell could actually reduce consumer bills compared with the alternatives. To try to assuage fears of consumers being on the hook for cost overruns under the RAB model, it says that even if Sizewell went £6 billion over budget — which it insists it will not — this would only add £3 a year to a household bill.